No, no, it is an unresized crop from a head shot, 3008x2008 pixel image (shown very tiny at the center, because I don't have permission to publish the image).
Dario ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 10:49 PM Subject: Re: Sharp eye (was: Samples from today's shoot...) > Dario, > I'll admit that I haven't been closely following this > thread, but did see the "eye" shot and have been aware > of the ongoing speculations. > Just to be certain, was the eye shot cropped from a > full head shot or is it 100% (as you stated) of an > image only of the area shown? > > Thanks, > > Jack > --- Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > OK folks, it's been long enough... > > The answer nobody dared to risk (and the most > > obvious) is: > > > > Camera: Pentax *ist D > > ISO: 400 > > Lighting: Studio bank (not flash) > > Lens: Sigma 70-200/2.8 > > Focal length: 180mm > > Aperture: 2.8 > > Shutter speed 1/125s (hand held, with elbow against > > something for extra > > support) > > JPEG file, straight from the camera. > > > > I understand that focal length and shutter speed > > were not so obvious. > > The funny thing is that apparently nobody among > > those who usually say the > > *istD to be tack sharp (most *istD users out there) > > thought it to be capable > > of such result ;-) > > It is also funny that somebody who usually criticize > > its "softness" (me) has > > to prove it can be sharp ;-) > > > > So, what did I learn from all this? > > > > 1) If you don't agree with mainstream opinion, don't > > debate first and show > > pictures then to support your idea. If so, all those > > already engaged in > > disagreeing with you won't truly see your pictures > > and will never admit your > > opinion can make some sense. It is much better you > > show a meaningful > > picture, let people comment it as you could do, and > > then feel free to agree > > with them. > > E.g. Isn't this picture detail better than just > > claiming bullshit such > > statements supposing digital quality to be far from > > that delivered by > > comparable film cameras? > > > > 2) With proper lighting, proper lens, proper > > focusing and steady support, > > the *ist D can give excellent results, even better > > than expected (by me and > > by most, apparently). I can almost hear the crowd > > rejoicing there: "At last, > > he has understood that!" However, don't forget that > > I've fallen in love with > > the *istD long time ago, and I never denied it can > > deliver excellent > > results. I only wrote that a lighter anti-alias > > filter and/or a better > > software could allow higher resolution and higher > > sharpness. Given such > > sharpness, think what you could get with a better > > calibrated filter in front > > of the sensor:-) > > > > And now another old question by me: Is it really > > necessary shooting RAW all > > the time as most of you guys keep doing and > > advicing? I fully agree that > > with a proper conversion software (thanks Pentax for > > introducing PhotoLab > > 2.0 asap :-) you can squeeze something extra out of > > your CCD, but I think > > that choosing the right lens and using it carefully > > about shake can mean a > > lot more. If your camera (or subject) is not still, > > I'm afraid RAW is of > > little help. > > > > Dario > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com >
